-
Join 35,692 other subscribers
Follow me on Twitter
My Tweetspatter on facebook
-
Recent Posts
- Story structure 2 – research writing
- Story and research writing
- when your writing plan gets stuck
- Planning and writing
- the planning fallacy and the PhD
- five discussion chapter challenges
- making the case for your research
- useless ideas
- academic writing as conversation
- AI and all that jazz
- thinking about collaborations
- a note on acronyms
Copyright
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.SEE MY CURATED POSTS ON WAKELET
LOOKING FOR POSTS ON WRITING FOR JOURNALS? REVISING AND EDITING? GIVING FEEDBACK AND REVIEWING? READING? GIVING A CONFERENCE PAPER? VISIT MY WAKES ON https://wakelet.com/@patter- abstracts academic blogging academic book academic writing acwrimo argument authority in writing blogging blogging about blogging books book writing chapter co-writing conclusion conference conference papers conference presentation contribution data data analysis doctoral research early career researchers editing examiner introduction journal journal article literature mapping literature review literature reviews literature themes methods chapter peer review PhD planning publishing reader reading research research methods revision revision strategy starting the PhD supervision Tate Summer School theory thesis time Uncategorized voice
Top Posts & Pages
- aims and objectives - what's the difference?
- writing a bio-note
- Story structure 2 - research writing
- what's a #phd 'contribution'?
- 20 reading journal prompts
- avoiding the laundry list literature review
- five ways to structure a literature review
- use a structured abstract to help write and revise
- making the case for your research
- finishing the #PhD - restructuring moves for thesis drafts
Meta
Tag Archives: peer review
familiarity and peer review
I’ve been doing some literature work. Now don’t get me wrong, I love literature work. But I am finding it all a bit same old same old right now. All the papers read the sme, even though they have different … Continue reading
dealing with rejection
This is a guest post from Dan Cleather. Dan is a strength coach, educator, scientist and anarchist. His latest book, “Subvert! A philosophical guide for the 21st century scientist”, was published in May. Being an academic requires a thick skin. Very … Continue reading
Posted in academic writing, peer review, rejection, research funding
Tagged Dan Cleather, peer review, rejection, research funding
4 Comments
peer reviewing your first paper
Patter now has over 800 posts. It’s pretty hard to find things on here, even when you know what you’re looking for. Some of the elderly posts are, I hope, still useful. I’ve decided to start an occasional ‘best of’ … Continue reading
Posted in academic writing, feedback, journal article, peer review, refereeing, reviewing, reviews
Tagged journal article, peer review, reviewing a paper
1 Comment
professors of the poison pen
Paul Stein’s 1939 film, The Poison Pen, is set in a small English village whose residents receive anonymous letters alleging sexual and moral misbehaviour. The recipients become increasingly angry and bent on revenge. A formerly quiet and placid place becomes … Continue reading
Posted in peer review, poison pen, Professor
Tagged Pat Thomson, peer review, Poison Pen Professor
4 Comments
when peer review is scent marking
Continuing random posts on peer reviewer behaviour… So we all know what scent marking is. It’s when animals set out the boundaries of their territory by leaving their scent in strategic places. Scentmarked territories are often used for sleeping and/or mating … Continue reading
Posted in disciplines, journal article, peer review, subfield, territoriality, Uncategorized
Tagged journal article, Pat Thomson, peer review, territoriality
2 Comments
self-citation by proxy
Meet Dr Oozing-Confidence. He knows his work is important. Very important. Superior even. He gets very miffed when he reads anything that is on his topic, or connected with it, that doesn’t recognise his contributions and their significance. He is always keen … Continue reading
Posted in conversation, journal article, peer review, self-citation
Tagged conversation, Pat Thomson, peer review, self-citation
5 Comments
a case of conflicting reviewer comments
So you’ve sent the paper into the journal and now the referee comments are in your in-box. You finally pluck up the courage to open the email and what do you find? Contradictory comments. Not helpful. Not at all. We … Continue reading
Posted in conflicting reviews, journal, journal editor, peer review, refereeing
Tagged conflicting reviews, editor, journal, Pat Thomson, peer review
5 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 3. writing the feedback
Having read the article carefully, and decided whether it’s accept without change, revise and resubmit or reject, there is now the task of writing the feedback to the author/s. There are four things to keep in mind when writing feedback: … Continue reading
Posted in feedback, journal, peer review, refereeing
Tagged academic publishing, feedback, Pat Thomson, peer review, refereeing
16 Comments
refereeing a journal article. part 1: reading
So you’ve just got an article to review and you’re not sure how to go about it. Before even beginning to read, the first thing to get clear about is the STANCE you have to take as a reviewer. Once … Continue reading
Posted in journal, peer review, reading, refereeing
Tagged conflict of interest, critical stance, journal article, Pat Thomson, peer review, refereeing
10 Comments